SURESH CHANDER SHARMA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the order dated 15.03.2008 (Annexure P-2) passed by the State of Haryana (the appropriate Government) rejecting the demand notice dated 12.08.2007 preferred by the workman claiming therein a reference of the dispute between the petitioner-workman and respondent No. 3-Management.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is not sustainable for the reason that the same has been rejected by the appropriate Government on the ground of a compromise dated 18.12.2006. He contends that the compromise, which has been referred to in the impugned order, was entered into between the Management and the Workers Union, which is not binding on him. He contends that this compromise was entered into between the Union and the Management in connivance with each other without taking into consideration the interest of the workman. He further contends that the termination of the workman is not based on the compromise and, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable.

(3.) On the other hand, counsel for respondent No. 3 contends that a compromise dated 18.12.2006, reference whereof has been made in the impugned order, was entered into between the Union and the Management under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which has a binding effect. He contends that the services of the workman were not terminated but he was retired from service on his attaining the age of superannuation as per the said agreement, which is 55 years. It has further been contended that the retiral benefits, due to the workman, have already been paid to him, which have been received by him. Another contention, which has been raised by the counsel for respondent No. 3, is that the workman has already filed a Civil Suit wherein he has prayed for a decree of declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is a regular employee of the Management and consequential relief has also been prayed therein that his services be not terminated. The agreement/settlement dated 18.12.2006 has also been challenged therein and a prayer for declaration declaring the same as null and void has also been made in the said Suit. He, on this basis, contends that the workman having availed already his remedy, which is available to him as per law and the retirement of the workman being in consonance with the settlement, it would not be termination of services of the workman, which would come within the definition of Section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act as it would fall under sub clause (bb) of the said Section, which would not, therefore, amount to retrenchment making the Industrial Disputes Act applicable to the claim of the workman. He, on this basis, contends that the order passed by the appropriate Government is in accordance with law, which does not call for any interference by this Court.